Question for PragerU: Do you or do you NOT support the right of PRIVATE COMPANIES to refuse "service" to anyone for any reason? YES or NO?(Remember, you are also stating your preference for Conservative Christian Bakeries to not serve Gay Weddings or not.)

You can't have it both ways assholes. Either a private company CAN run it's business as it sees fit or not.

Waiting..........

My guess is this lawsuit is more about pointing out the hippocracy of the current situation, and rallying it's base then about actually forcing the change.

So you support arbitrarily removing property rights from companies once they get large enough. Got it.

So lets look at the real world, shall we? Because all of this whataboutism coupled with outright fantasy is giving me a headache. All of Google's products come with a published TOS that users agree to before they are allowed to use the product. So as long as I abide by those terms, I've got nothing to worry about. And if I violate those terms, I've got no reason to complain.

Where's the problem?

And should I violate those terms and Google kicks me off, there are alternatives for absolutely, positively everything Google offers. Those alternatives may not be as popular or as good as what Google has on offer, but it isn't like losing access to Google's products sentences me to and endless internet-less existence.

Can you please forget about "free speech" and PagerU?I'm not talking about those.I asked a question about the unregulated "power" of big companies.

And I don't support by default "arbitrarily removing property rights from companies once they get large enough", I'm just ASKING if the status quo is correct for other users here.These companies are becoming more powerful than governments and they can affect people lives worldwide.Is it correct to say "it's their thing, so they can do as they want?".(for you yes, but I'd like other opinions too)

(and please don't tell me that Google alternatives are the same.. imagine if your site could only appear on Bing and DuckDuckGo..)

You're being pretty disingenuous here. You originally "asked" in this comment section, in the context of this article, using an example that specifically involved the company that the article deals with. You even structured the example to try and push a personal response ("Imagine if Google deleted your account and\or your site from results...") and tried to press "liberals" by saying "Google could be conservative next time!".

You were making a statement on the article in a roundabout way and trying to convince people to agree with it. Please don't pretend that you were just asking a question for the sake of it, because that's not what that looks like.

You're being pretty disingenuous here. You originally "asked" in this comment section, in the context of this article, using an example that specifically involved the company that the article deals with. You even structured the example to try and push a personal response ("Imagine if Google deleted your account and\or your site from results...") and tried to press "liberals" by saying "Google could be conservative next time!".

You were making a statement on the article in a roundabout way and trying to convince people to agree with it. Please don't pretend that you were just asking a question for the sake of it, because that's not what that looks like.

Some people on this forum are too aggressive\defensive..I don't know that PagerU, nor I care about it.I simply asked here a question that is bugging me since a while. It's related to the article only for the already-explained topic.I even wrote that it's a generic question.I added that "liberal" example because I'm left-wing myself. I just wanted to say: "Consider also this circumstance! Companies can change vision completely. What would you think in that case? "

You're being pretty disingenuous here. You originally "asked" in this comment section, in the context of this article, using an example that specifically involved the company that the article deals with. You even structured the example to try and push a personal response ("Imagine if Google deleted your account and\or your site from results...") and tried to press "liberals" by saying "Google could be conservative next time!".

You were making a statement on the article in a roundabout way and trying to convince people to agree with it. Please don't pretend that you were just asking a question for the sake of it, because that's not what that looks like.

Some people on this forum are too aggressive\defensive..I don't know that PagerU, nor I care about it.I simply asked here a question that is bugging me since a while. It's related to the article only due the already-explained topic.I even wrote that it's a generic question.I added that "liberal" example because I'm left-wing myself. I just wanted to say: "Consider also this circumstance! Companies can change vision completely. What would you think in that case? "

Sorry, I'm not buying this. If you were legitimately just wondering what people thought, you wouldn't have structured the question to evoke an emotional response that pushes them to a specific answer.

You're being pretty disingenuous here. You originally "asked" in this comment section, in the context of this article, using an example that specifically involved the company that the article deals with. You even structured the example to try and push a personal response ("Imagine if Google deleted your account and\or your site from results...") and tried to press "liberals" by saying "Google could be conservative next time!".

You were making a statement on the article in a roundabout way and trying to convince people to agree with it. Please don't pretend that you were just asking a question for the sake of it, because that's not what that looks like.

Some people on this forum are too aggressive\defensive..I don't know that PagerU, nor I care about it.I simply asked here a question that is bugging me since a while. It's related to the article only due the already-explained topic.I even wrote that it's a generic question.I added that "liberal" example because I'm left-wing myself. I just wanted to say: "Consider also this circumstance! Companies can change vision completely. What would you think in that case? "

Sorry, I'm not buying this. If you were legitimately just wondering what people thought, you wouldn't have structured the question to evoke an emotional response that pushes them to a specific answer.

Sorry, I'm not buying this. If you were legitimately just wondering what people thought, you wouldn't have structured the question to evoke an emotional response that pushes them to a specific answer.

Your decision is too fast and too final O_oI tried to express my point as well as I could (I'm not even english).I would have liked to hear also your opinion on the topic, but you don't even want to discuss now..

You're being pretty disingenuous here. You originally "asked" in this comment section, in the context of this article, using an example that specifically involved the company that the article deals with. You even structured the example to try and push a personal response ("Imagine if Google deleted your account and\or your site from results...") and tried to press "liberals" by saying "Google could be conservative next time!".

You were making a statement on the article in a roundabout way and trying to convince people to agree with it. Please don't pretend that you were just asking a question for the sake of it, because that's not what that looks like.

Some people on this forum are too aggressive\defensive..I don't know that PagerU, nor I care about it.I simply asked here a question that is bugging me since a while. It's related to the article only due the already-explained topic.I even wrote that it's a generic question.I added that "liberal" example because I'm left-wing myself. I just wanted to say: "Consider also this circumstance! Companies can change vision completely. What would you think in that case? "

Sorry, I'm not buying this. If you were legitimately just wondering what people thought, you wouldn't have structured the question to evoke an emotional response that pushes them to a specific answer.

Pushing peoples buttons is often a way to get past a person's public veneer of "acceptable" thought.

Sorry, I'm not buying this. If you were legitimately just wondering what people thought, you wouldn't have structured the question to evoke an emotional response that pushes them to a specific answer.

Your decision is too fast and too final O_oI tried to express my point as well as I could (I'm not even english).I would have like to hear also your opinion on the topic, but you don't even want to discuss now..

You don't seem to understand the problem.

You expressed a point. That's fine. You gave a hypothetical to help express it. That's also fine.

When people pointed out that your hypothetical doesn't really work or apply in this context, you shifted gears and declared that you were just asking the question out of curiosity. You started pretending that the question as asked doesn't push people to give a particular answer (it does). You told people to "forget about "free speech" and PagerU" because you're "not talking about those", even though they're the entire subject of the article and this comment thread.

That's what's not fine. You asked the question to make a point and you declared that you were just asking it for the sake of asking it after the fact, and that's not honest.

So you support arbitrarily removing property rights from companies once they get large enough. Got it.

So lets look at the real world, shall we? Because all of this whataboutism coupled with outright fantasy is giving me a headache. All of Google's products come with a published TOS that users agree to before they are allowed to use the product. So as long as I abide by those terms, I've got nothing to worry about. And if I violate those terms, I've got no reason to complain.

Where's the problem?

And should I violate those terms and Google kicks me off, there are alternatives for absolutely, positively everything Google offers. Those alternatives may not be as popular or as good as what Google has on offer, but it isn't like losing access to Google's products sentences me to and endless internet-less existence.

Can you please forget about "free speech" and PagerU?I'm not talking about those.I asked a question about the unregulated "power" of big companies.

And I don't support by default "arbitrarily removing property rights from companies once they get large enough", I'm just ASKING if the status quo is correct for other users here.These companies are becoming more powerful than governments and they can affect people's lives worldwide.Is it correct to say "it's their thing, so they can do as they want?".(for you yes, but I'd like other opinions too)

(and please don't tell me that Google alternatives are the same.. imagine if your site could only appear on Bing and DuckDuckGo..)

OK, if we set aside the topic of the thread, just what "unregulated power" are you talking about? In the abstract, that is a nonsensical notion because power is the ability to do something concrete. So unless you're going on some generic, pointless rant about companies, generally talking about "unregulated power" gets nowhere fast.

Take your example of Google removing someone from all Google services. They generally don't do that arbitrarily. Some people claim they do, but generally Google has a published set of terms users are expected to live by and get enforced when users violate them. Does Google setting and enforcing terms of service amount to "unregulated power"? Does Google changing their TOS when confronted with unexpected situations amount to "unregulated power"? And if "unregulated power" is objectionable, just how should that be regulated?

Really, all you're doing at this point is waving your hands about and complaining about big companies. It might help the conversation if you actually had a point to make.

So you support arbitrarily removing property rights from companies once they get large enough. Got it.

So lets look at the real world, shall we? Because all of this whataboutism coupled with outright fantasy is giving me a headache. All of Google's products come with a published TOS that users agree to before they are allowed to use the product. So as long as I abide by those terms, I've got nothing to worry about. And if I violate those terms, I've got no reason to complain.

Where's the problem?

And should I violate those terms and Google kicks me off, there are alternatives for absolutely, positively everything Google offers. Those alternatives may not be as popular or as good as what Google has on offer, but it isn't like losing access to Google's products sentences me to and endless internet-less existence.

Can you please forget about "free speech" and PagerU?I'm not talking about those.I asked a question about the unregulated "power" of big companies.

And I don't support by default "arbitrarily removing property rights from companies once they get large enough", I'm just ASKING if the status quo is correct for other users here.These companies are becoming more powerful than governments and they can affect people lives worldwide.Is it correct to say "it's their thing, so they can do as they want?".(for you yes, but I'd like other opinions too)

(and please don't tell me that Google alternatives are the same.. imagine if your site could only appear on Bing and DuckDuckGo..)

You're being pretty disingenuous here. You originally "asked" in this comment section, in the context of this article, using an example that specifically involved the company that the article deals with. You even structured the example to try and push a personal response ("Imagine if Google deleted your account and\or your site from results...") and tried to press "liberals" by saying "Google could be conservative next time!".

You were making a statement on the article in a roundabout way and trying to convince people to agree with it. Please don't pretend that you were just asking a question for the sake of it, because that's not what that looks like.

Speaking from the outside looking in: The entire point of discussing an article is to ultimately dissect it. You deconstruct it into parts and ask questions to sound out the details of it. That's a dialogue. There is common ground between you and him. Locating where that is and where you two diverge identifies the different premises which build your opinions and views that differ. Asking questions can be a tactic of manipulation, but it is only that way because it is a tactic of discussion in the first place.

I have an honest question. I fear it will be perceived as trolling, I'm honestly questioning though.

When I read the comment forums here at ARS on some of these controversial issues, one of the common responses I *think* I see is the idea that since Google is a private company, they have the right to host/promote whatever they want; that the demands of free speech are not valid because it's not the government we're talking about here. This was a common opinion regarding the nazi dude's frustrations getting hosted or whatever recently.

On the flip side is the common carrier ideas. Provide a service, provide it to everyone. Doesn't matter whether you're a government bus or a private bus company any one can sit in your bus and sit where they want. Same with the baker controversies. You're a baker. You don't get to decide who you bake cakes for based on what they do in their bedroom.

These two view points seem inconsistent to me. What is the clarification I am missing.

And another question, as long as I'm already in long post mode... One of the recurring themes with legislating that "content" transporters like ISPs and Googles (as opposed to content creators) can't be held responsible for what they host, is the complaint that it would cost too much and be prohibitive to be held responsible for the legality of the content they transport. But as a company like google or other internet service exercises their right to decide who they do business with and who they don't, don't they run the risk of the invalidating the claim? Can't the judge come back and say "you apparently DO have the bandwidth to police your content when it's in the interest of your business model, but not the laws of the land?"

You are mixing a few separate issues here. Google being private matters because, generally speaking, the First Amendment only applies to *government* restricting speech (and very originally, it only applied to the *federal* government, until I believe the 14th Amendment).

The "common carrier" idea is a concept that is, when it comes to Google and the like, not enshrined in any law whatsoever. Basically, it applies to landline phone service (and to some extent cellular), but little else.

You people are not going to like this reasoning when it goes all "Continuum" on us.

Or "Dark Matter"...

Or... ...must I list them all?

I loved "Continuum", it was a great show, had a lot to say about the three-way balance of power between individuals, corporations, and government, and it's totally irrelevant here.

The government has a well developed set of tools to deal with a single corporation or cartel exercising suppressive market power. It's called antitrust law. We also have a general set of tools that government already uses to impose consumer/citizen-protecting obligations on entire industries. They're called regulations.

The Europeans recently enacted a hybrid of the two, a privacy regulation that includes monopoly-busting data rights. When that goes into effect next May, any social media or data publishing company will be required to give a copy of your data back to you in a machine readable format ingestible by competitors. Don't like Facebook? Take your data with you, give it to a social media startup, and have your posts and shares and photos there.

If what you really care about is the excessive market power of corporations, are you supporting the FTC? The EPA? Are you calling your congressperson and telling them to stop gutting the power of the CFPB? Are you demanding the DOJ start enforcing antitrust laws again?

Because if you're afraid of "Continuum" and the corporate Congress, that's what you should be doing.

So you support arbitrarily removing property rights from companies once they get large enough. Got it.

So lets look at the real world, shall we? Because all of this whataboutism coupled with outright fantasy is giving me a headache. All of Google's products come with a published TOS that users agree to before they are allowed to use the product. So as long as I abide by those terms, I've got nothing to worry about. And if I violate those terms, I've got no reason to complain.

Where's the problem?

And should I violate those terms and Google kicks me off, there are alternatives for absolutely, positively everything Google offers. Those alternatives may not be as popular or as good as what Google has on offer, but it isn't like losing access to Google's products sentences me to and endless internet-less existence.

Can you please forget about "free speech" and PagerU?I'm not talking about those.I asked a question about the unregulated "power" of big companies.

And I don't support by default "arbitrarily removing property rights from companies once they get large enough", I'm just ASKING if the status quo is correct for other users here.These companies are becoming more powerful than governments and they can affect people lives worldwide.Is it correct to say "it's their thing, so they can do as they want?".(for you yes, but I'd like other opinions too)

(and please don't tell me that Google alternatives are the same.. imagine if your site could only appear on Bing and DuckDuckGo..)

You're being pretty disingenuous here. You originally "asked" in this comment section, in the context of this article, using an example that specifically involved the company that the article deals with. You even structured the example to try and push a personal response ("Imagine if Google deleted your account and\or your site from results...") and tried to press "liberals" by saying "Google could be conservative next time!".

You were making a statement on the article in a roundabout way and trying to convince people to agree with it. Please don't pretend that you were just asking a question for the sake of it, because that's not what that looks like.

Speaking from the outside looking in: The entire point of discussing an article is to ultimately dissect it. You deconstruct it into parts and ask questions to sound out the details of it. That's a dialogue. There is common ground between you and him. Locating where that is and where you two diverge identifies the different premises which build your opinions and views that differ. Asking questions can be a tactic of manipulation, but it is only that way because it is a tactic of discussion in the first place.

Again, the problem is not that he asked the question. The problem is that he lied about his motives for doing so in order to avoid having to address criticisms of the point that he was trying to make. He's claiming that he wasn't trying to make a point so that he can actively avoid discussion with the people who responded to the argument that he was implicitly making, so it makes no sense to treat it as a normal part of discussion.

While I think Youtube has turned into a pile of garbage, and think they are obviously biased against conservatives viewpoints, I do agree they have the right to filter content on their platform.

That said, I think the issue here is that they have to filter equally based on their TOS. For example, if they say that Video X needs to be age limited, then all videos that fit the circumstances of Video X would need to be age limited... not because of "Free Speech", but because that is the agreement in the TOS. If what everyone here is saying is that Youtube can do whatever they want with their business, then there should be no reason a bakery has to make a cake for gay people, or gay coffee shops have to serve Christian extremists... When you enter into a public business in the US, you either have to treat and serve all clients equally regardless of their race, gender, beliefs, etc, or you don't. If Youtube is allowed to censor/restrict content based on political stance, then so be it... but we then have to open the door to all other businesses to restrict service based on these grounds. How offended would you be if you tried to order a pizza, but they wouldnt serve you because of your idiot feel the bern sticker?

And you then go on to equate loss of free speech with silly user mistakes? Oh, and in case you hadn't noticed, Twitter and Twitch are in the same boat as Youtube, they aren't government in any way, shape, or form and therefore are free to decide what is, or is not, appropriate to display on their private property.

Seriously, you're not making any point at all, much less a coherent one.

Strikes = copyright strikes. They're unregulated on YT, so any company\individual can issue them and kill channels (without too much repercussion, it seems).

So copyright is out of control and this is a free speech problem how? I'm all for copyright reform, but I fail to see how it has any impact on Youtubes continued hosting of PragerU videos.

Quote:

About the "free speech" part, I didn't equate it to "silly user mistakes"..I'm talking about losing access to worlwide services due to company decisions.Just imagine for a second if Google said that you can't use their services anymore due to X reason..

So you support arbitrarily removing property rights from companies once they get large enough. Got it.

So lets look at the real world, shall we? Because all of this whataboutism coupled with outright fantasy is giving me a headache. All of Google's products come with a published TOS that users agree to before they are allowed to use the product. So as long as I abide by those terms, I've got nothing to worry about. And if I violate those terms, I've got no reason to complain.

Where's the problem?

And should I violate those terms and Google kicks me off, there are alternatives for absolutely, positively everything Google offers. Those alternatives may not be as popular or as good as what Google has on offer, but it isn't like losing access to Google's products sentences me to and endless internet-less existence.

Their TOS are fairly worthless. Maybe you get some bullshit DMCA takedown notices that kill your account, maybe they keep demonitizing videos because their algorithm is garbage or they just delete videos because again, their algorithm is garbage. All of those issues have happened before and continue to happen, you don't need to necessarily violate the TOS to get your channel shut down or demonitized, you just need to run afoul of their filter.

As for going else where it's not a realistic option right now, for plenty of Youtubers making videos is their job and without Youtube they'd make a pittance. That said some are trying to make themselves less reliant on adsense and places like Bellingcat who post evidence of crimes are looking at alternatives. Still though, Youtube is the biggest and most popular video host in the world, if you want your content consumed you'll need a Youtube presence.

As for PragerU they're idiots, first amendment doesn't work here, Restricted Mode is doing what it's supposed to and I doubt the US would classify YT as a monopoly, EU maybe but not the US. As for the demonitizing stuff, that's been hammering everyone since adpocalypse and on that front I do wish them luck however unlikely it may be.

So you support arbitrarily removing property rights from companies once they get large enough. Got it.

So lets look at the real world, shall we? Because all of this whataboutism coupled with outright fantasy is giving me a headache. All of Google's products come with a published TOS that users agree to before they are allowed to use the product. So as long as I abide by those terms, I've got nothing to worry about. And if I violate those terms, I've got no reason to complain.

Where's the problem?

And should I violate those terms and Google kicks me off, there are alternatives for absolutely, positively everything Google offers. Those alternatives may not be as popular or as good as what Google has on offer, but it isn't like losing access to Google's products sentences me to and endless internet-less existence.

Can you please forget about "free speech" and PagerU?I'm not talking about those.I asked a question about the unregulated "power" of big companies.

And I don't support by default "arbitrarily removing property rights from companies once they get large enough", I'm just ASKING if the status quo is correct for other users here.These companies are becoming more powerful than governments and they can affect people's lives worldwide.Is it correct to say "it's their thing, so they can do as they want?".(for you yes, but I'd like other opinions too)

(and please don't tell me that Google alternatives are the same.. imagine if your site could only appear on Bing and DuckDuckGo..)

Yes, they can do as they please with regards to what you can do on their property.

And no, that right shouldn't be altered, it also protects your right in your home or on your website to limit what people can do.

OK, if we set aside the topic of the thread, just what "unregulated power" are you talking about? In the abstract, that is a nonsensical notion because power is the ability to do something concrete. So unless you're going on some generic, pointless rant about companies, generally talking about "unregulated power" gets nowhere fast.

Take your example of Google removing someone from all Google services. They generally don't do that arbitrarily. Some people claim they do, but generally Google has a published set of terms users are expected to live by and get enforced when users violate them. Does Google setting and enforcing terms of service amount to "unregulated power"? Does Google changing their TOS when confronted with unexpected situations amount to "unregulated power"? And if "unregulated power" is objectionable, just how should that be regulated?

Really, all you're doing at this point is waving your hands about and complaining about big companies. It might help the conversation if you actually had a point to make.

I don't understand why an abstract discussion about the big companies's unregulated power is "unacceptable".Even if they NEVER removed accounts arbitrarly or wrongly (I doubt it), they still could do it in total freedom, and that's the issue (I think? Everybody is totally fine with this? I'm not sure, I was asking for opinions).

Perhaps this wasn't the ideal (but not totally unrelated) place to ask such generic question, but what can I do, should I wait for Ars to write some article about it first?Maybe I'll try some other forum. ¯\_(O_o)_/¯

So the Supreme Court said that this person could hand out religious pamphlets in a privately owned company town. Why? First amendment is part of the answer obviously. Also the 14th, which I don't quite get. The 14th was on of the post-Civil War ones to make sure former slaves had the rights of a citizen.

I THINK it was because they compared impact of the individual's right versus the impact on the business (which was minimal in this case).

I have never watched a single PagerU video, but censoring free speech, liberal, conservative or otherwise should be punished. The fact that so many people cheer for curtailement of free speech and expression (on both sides of the political spectrum) is terrifyingly to say the least.

What curtailment of free speech?

Well, in Google’s case, demonetizing videos based on political content (assuming the accusation is true). The “it’s not the government” argument is utter bullshit since the internet is by far the biggest public forum.

Lets work this through then smart guy.

Where does this freedom of speech come from?

Going to go right ahead and pre-empt your answer and presume its the first amendment:

Quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress has made no such law. Google is not Congress. Even in its most wide reading where "Congress" means "Government", Google still isn't caught by this because Google isn't government.

So the first amendment does not apply.

Quote:

We have to understand that the right to freedom of speech either applies to everyone or no one. Unfortunately, too many people believe that freedom of speech should only be granted to people they agree with.

Freedom of speech is not freedom to demand someone else carries your speech for you, or allows you access to their advertising platform.

To get someone to carry your speech or access an advertising platform, you need to look at "Deeper magic" than the freedoms in the Consitutition - specifically the ancient common law of contract Contract. You've no right to demand I contract with you if I don't want to, absent some other law that says otherwise - otherwise that would breach my freedom to contract.

You're free to speak, you're not free to demand I help you speak.

If you disagree, I have a giant sandwich board here with "I am a moron" in large letters. I demand you wear it. You're violating my free speech (to inform people of your moron status) if you don't.

So,I assume that you would be perfectly content if Google decided to demonitize all climate change videos, right?

It is their right to do so, or not carry them at all should they choose. Will I like the decision? No. But they unquestioniningly have the right not to carry them, just as Infowars has the right not to publish my piece involving a cactus and Alex Jones' mother....

So the Supreme Court said that this person could hand out religious pamphlets in a privately owned company town. Why? First amendment is part of the answer obviously. Also the 14th, which I don't quite get. The 14th was on of the post-Civil War ones to make sure former slaves had the rights of a citizen.

I THINK it was because they compared impact of the individual's right versus the impact on the business (which was minimal in this case).

I think given your apparent lack of understanding of legal issues, you should probably avoid drawing legal conclusions.

From looking at the facts of the case on Wikipedia, it was the Sherrif who was attempting to apply a company law. The Sherrif is part of the government, and thus the First Amendment applies (as the Sherrif is an agent of the government, and the term "Congrtess" in the first amendment is read to mean "All Government and its agencies at all levels").

It's about time conservatives start fighting back, somehow over the past decades most of media, academics and now tech have moved very far to the left.

Great!

I'm a conservative Republican. I will absolutely fight back...against anyone trying to insist that private property can be usurped to be public property just because it's popular. Because that is fundamentally antithetical to principles of limited government, personal freedom, and basic autonomy free from the desires of people with differing views.

I will absolutely fight against people who shout about FREEZE PEACH and CENTAUR'S SHIP when they have zero understanding of what free speech and censorship actually protects you from. I will absolutely fight against ignorance of the natural limits that rights and freedoms have.

If only so many people who were so painfully ignorant didn't also consider themselves "conservative", my fight would be a lot easier.

OK, if we set aside the topic of the thread, just what "unregulated power" are you talking about? In the abstract, that is a nonsensical notion because power is the ability to do something concrete. So unless you're going on some generic, pointless rant about companies, generally talking about "unregulated power" gets nowhere fast.

Take your example of Google removing someone from all Google services. They generally don't do that arbitrarily. Some people claim they do, but generally Google has a published set of terms users are expected to live by and get enforced when users violate them. Does Google setting and enforcing terms of service amount to "unregulated power"? Does Google changing their TOS when confronted with unexpected situations amount to "unregulated power"? And if "unregulated power" is objectionable, just how should that be regulated?

Really, all you're doing at this point is waving your hands about and complaining about big companies. It might help the conversation if you actually had a point to make.

I don't understand why an abstract discussion about the big companies's unregulated power is "unacceptable".Even if they NEVER removed accounts arbitrarly or wrongly (I doubt it), they still could do it in total freedom, and that's the issue (I think? Everybody is totally fine with this? I'm not sure, I was asking for opinions).

Perhaps this wasn't the ideal (but not totally unrelated) place to ask such generic question, but what can I do, should I wait for Ars to write some article about it first?Maybe I'll try some other forum. ¯\_(O_o)_/¯

You've now moved firmly into disingenuous territory. I never said unacceptable, I said pointless. Different things.

And it is pointless in the abstract because what unregulated power are you talking about? The unregulated power to hire and fire employees? Issue stock certificates? Fart loudly in a small room? Unless you have some concept of what unregulated power you want to talk about, the generic conversation is as useful as swapping fish stories.

But you seem to keep coming back to accounts being removed for some reason, so it seems pretty safe to assume you're concerned about a companies power over speech. However, the examples you keep putting out are so hypothetical as to be useless. Google doesn't arbitrarily remove accounts. Google is required to follow local laws. Google generally follows their own rules. Very little arbitrary here.

What you are seeing in this thread is a bunch of ignorami whining because their speech is so horrific that it does trigger Google's rules and therefore is being confined to an area where users are required to consent to viewing such material and content owners are not allowed to monetize the content. Again, nothing arbitrary, Google just enforcing its rules.

So you support arbitrarily removing property rights from companies once they get large enough. Got it.

So lets look at the real world, shall we? Because all of this whataboutism coupled with outright fantasy is giving me a headache. All of Google's products come with a published TOS that users agree to before they are allowed to use the product. So as long as I abide by those terms, I've got nothing to worry about. And if I violate those terms, I've got no reason to complain.

Where's the problem?

And should I violate those terms and Google kicks me off, there are alternatives for absolutely, positively everything Google offers. Those alternatives may not be as popular or as good as what Google has on offer, but it isn't like losing access to Google's products sentences me to and endless internet-less existence.

Can you please forget about "free speech" and PagerU?I'm not talking about those.I asked a question about the unregulated "power" of big companies.

And I don't support by default "arbitrarily removing property rights from companies once they get large enough", I'm just ASKING if the status quo is correct for other users here.These companies are becoming more powerful than governments and they can affect people lives worldwide.Is it correct to say "it's their thing, so they can do as they want?".(for you yes, but I'd like other opinions too)

(and please don't tell me that Google alternatives are the same.. imagine if your site could only appear on Bing and DuckDuckGo..)

You're being pretty disingenuous here. You originally "asked" in this comment section, in the context of this article, using an example that specifically involved the company that the article deals with. You even structured the example to try and push a personal response ("Imagine if Google deleted your account and\or your site from results...") and tried to press "liberals" by saying "Google could be conservative next time!".

You were making a statement on the article in a roundabout way and trying to convince people to agree with it. Please don't pretend that you were just asking a question for the sake of it, because that's not what that looks like.

Speaking from the outside looking in: The entire point of discussing an article is to ultimately dissect it. You deconstruct it into parts and ask questions to sound out the details of it. That's a dialogue. There is common ground between you and him. Locating where that is and where you two diverge identifies the different premises which build your opinions and views that differ. Asking questions can be a tactic of manipulation, but it is only that way because it is a tactic of discussion in the first place.

Again, the problem is not that he asked the question. The problem is that he lied about his motives for doing so in order to avoid having to address criticisms of the point that he was trying to make. He's claiming that he wasn't trying to make a point so that he can actively avoid discussion with the people who responded to the argument that he was implicitly making, so it makes no sense to treat it as a normal part of discussion.

Fair enough on his duplicity, but the act of stepping away from the conclusion is how you discuss a contentious point.

I go to a conference to convince people of a measured phenomenon. If I go into a panel discussion to convince people of it, we don't argue about the conclusions and stay there. No. We go to the theoretical and basics underneath it to start with (if known). If a person in the panel refuses to step to that level, what happens to them? Well, historically, they risk removal or censure because they are mostly likely entrenched for commercial reasons (at least in the applied sciences).The point is that when you don't allow questioning of why, you aren't being objective. You don't seek to win over someone else nor wish to risk being won over yourself. In the case of racism, there is little risk of being win over to their side. Whatever question they might ask has almost certainly been answered. The worst you could say is, "Let me get back to you."

Why bother is a worthwhile question for yourself, but the truth is, unless we as a society choose to actively engage with them, they WILL spread and it will make our society worse. The isolation of them isn't winning.

I think that if this was flipped around and it was a racial group, say African Americans, people would be screaming all kinds of things about how unfair it is. But, all the arguments against PragerU would be relevant for African Americans too. It's a private company at the end of the day and you can't force it to publish your content, conservative, African American, or veteran.

No. Not only no, but no because this is deeply offensive. We do not treat race and political opinion equally, for the simple reason that they are entirely different things.

The entire purpose of US anti-discrimination law is to ensure all citizens and residents of the US are treated fairly and equally based on certain "immutable" characteristics; that is, qualities that are unchangeable. A person cannot choose to not be African-American. It is something they are born with. If you allow for African-Americans to be treated differently then you are literally creating two different classes of citizenship based on race. No matter what he or she does, that person (and their children will not have equal access to opportunities in the United States. That is deeply and fundamentally unfair to entire classes of citizens and causes them substantial economic and non-economic harm, which is what justifies government intrusion to enforce limits on how companies can exclude people.

A "conservative" is just a label people apply to folks who hold certain political views. And nobody can even agree on what a "conservative" is these days. For the last few decades, conservatism has reflected either "fiscal conservatism" (which believes in a free market and less regulation) and "social conservatism" (which seeks to assert religious "values" through government). There are "conservatives" in this thread that aren't expressing religious undertones, but are also bluntly defying fiscal conservatism by suggesting government should force businesses to do business with people with radical political views. So even the term "conservative" is pretty meaningless for defining a class of people worthy of protection.

But that aside... what Google is really saying here is that it objects to having its platform used to generate profit based on radical political messaging, or to expose children to those views. YouTube hasn't even taken the PragerU videos down, it's just put them in a status where they aren't visible to minors and they don't earn money (for Google or PragerU). Google isn't saying it won't host the content, and it's certainly not doing it because these viewpoints are "conservative" (there are radical liberals making the same complaints about Google "censorship" too).

And here's the important thing--Google is not refusing to do business with anyone. Google doesn't care (and in many cases probably doesn't know) if the creator of these videos is white or African-American. And both whites and African-Americans can create videos on the same topics and use the site in the same ways. Both are subject to content restrictions, but they're not content restrictions designed to suppress a certain race.

And if a business wants to say "I don't want to do business with Nazis", it should be able to do that, because Nazis ≠ white people, and isn't targeting anyone based on any immutable characteristic. You can choose to not be a Nazi.

The ironic thing is, this has been going on for years for various minority groups. This just seems like the first time large numbers of white peolle are encountering it.

Let people publish what they want. As long as they do not advocate violence, use to intimidate others, or is inappropriately sexual, let their arguments stand on their merits. If they are worthy arguments, they'll gain traction, if they are bad, people will tell them they are bad and create space.

See the recent Reddit example that showed the opposite: Banning hate speech was the only thing that dramatically reduced hate speech, but many users stuck around and kept participating in Reddit in non-hateful ways. Hate speech thrives in the absence of resistance. There's a reason "the only thing required for evil to triumph..." is such a well known adage.

thank god for all the people in this thread that love corporate power infringing on individual freedom when it hurts their political opponents. a truly principled stand that i’m certain would be equally lauditory if the censorship were aimed at discussion of climate change

You're an idiot, and an idiot that doesn't read or pay attention to Ars comment sections. You'll find a lot of deeply principled people here, if you bother to read what they write instead of taking cheap shots with no aim.

And you then go on to equate loss of free speech with silly user mistakes? Oh, and in case you hadn't noticed, Twitter and Twitch are in the same boat as Youtube, they aren't government in any way, shape, or form and therefore are free to decide what is, or is not, appropriate to display on their private property.

Seriously, you're not making any point at all, much less a coherent one.

Strikes = copyright strikes. They're unregulated on YT, so any company\individual can issue them and kill channels (without too much repercussion, it seems).

So copyright is out of control and this is a free speech problem how? I'm all for copyright reform, but I fail to see how it has any impact on Youtubes continued hosting of PragerU videos.

Quote:

About the "free speech" part, I didn't equate it to "silly user mistakes"..I'm talking about losing access to worlwide services due to company decisions.Just imagine for a second if Google said that you can't use their services anymore due to X reason..

So you support arbitrarily removing property rights from companies once they get large enough. Got it.

So lets look at the real world, shall we? Because all of this whataboutism coupled with outright fantasy is giving me a headache. All of Google's products come with a published TOS that users agree to before they are allowed to use the product. So as long as I abide by those terms, I've got nothing to worry about. And if I violate those terms, I've got no reason to complain.

Where's the problem?

And should I violate those terms and Google kicks me off, there are alternatives for absolutely, positively everything Google offers. Those alternatives may not be as popular or as good as what Google has on offer, but it isn't like losing access to Google's products sentences me to and endless internet-less existence.

Their TOS are fairly worthless. Maybe you get some bullshit DMCA takedown notices that kill your account, maybe they keep demonitizing videos because their algorithm is garbage or they just delete videos because again, their algorithm is garbage. All of those issues have happened before and continue to happen, you don't need to necessarily violate the TOS to get your channel shut down or demonitized, you just need to run afoul of their filter.

So?

Google is required to comply with the DMCA, that isn't optional. If they do a lousy job of it, that isn't a free speech issue. And the broader point is that Google isn't behaving randomly or maliciously when it restricts or removes content. It may suck at the task, but there isn't malevolence involved. And I'm sorry, but absolutely no one is guaranteed the right to monetize Youtube content.

Quote:

As for going else where it's not a realistic option right now, for plenty of Youtubers making videos is their job and without Youtube they'd make a pittance. That said some are trying to make themselves less reliant on adsense and places like Bellingcat who post evidence of crimes are looking at alternatives. Still though, Youtube is the biggest and most popular video host in the world, if you want your content consumed you'll need a Youtube presence.

Again, Google owes nobody a revenue stream. Whether or not your content is monetizable is in no way a free speech issue.

Quote:

As for PragerU they're idiots, first amendment doesn't work here, Restricted Mode is doing what it's supposed to and I doubt the US would classify YT as a monopoly, EU maybe but not the US. As for the demonitizing stuff, that's been hammering everyone since adpocalypse and on that front I do wish them luck however unlikely it may be.

I'm certainly not interested in defending conservative bul***it, but there's a point I'm wondering about since a while.

Is it correct that worldwide widespread companies are allowed to arbitrarly remove content, opinions, accounts, because "free speech" doesn't apply in such cases?

Imagine if Google deleted your account and\or your site from results because your opinion doesn't reflect the company's current one (which could be conservative in the future!) or because you're in litigation with them..

Could they do that?

For the most part, yeah. Just like in the real world, if you pay someone to rent a billboard and they dislike your message, they can either choose not to renew with you and have someone remove your message or, if you violate the terms of your agreement, they can terminate immediately and delete your message immediately.

This is the fundamental concept of property. Google owns it. If "Google" was a singular person who owned all these servers and was letting people put stuff up on their property, then there'd be much less confusion. Yes, of course, an owner has a right to choose what to do with their property, and you only have the specific rights that the property owner grants you, for as long as they grant them, and on the conditions they specify.

If Google violates their own terms of use, or a similar type of contract, you may have a claim against them. But I'd imagine that their attorneys are very, very good at making sure that when you sign up for their services, you agree to the idea that they are still lord and master of their domain (yes, that's a property pun).

The principles of ownership apply to your home, a private business on a popular corner, or a website. Imagine you have a very nice plot of land that lets you deliver a message. You can rent it out to people at your own pleasure, right? You can let people put signs on it. You can let them give speeches. You can also do these things on a selective basis. If you don't want to support white supremacists, you don't have to rent to them. You can rent to all democrats.

The few limitations on your freedom to associate are the specific protected classes. Things like gender, race, or religion. That's...really about it. Even if you are the best venue in the world, even if you are the most popular...you have certain rights over your property. Nobody can force you to carry a message on your property just because they want it to be there. It's YOURS.

It's about time conservatives start fighting back, somehow over the past decades most of media, academics and now tech have moved very far to the left.

Great!

I'm a conservative Republican. I will absolutely fight back...against anyone trying to insist that private property can be usurped to be public property just because it's popular. Because that is fundamentally antithetical to principles of limited government, personal freedom, and basic autonomy free from the desires of people with differing views.

I would offer a counter argument based on "Freedom to roam" legislation (as exists in Scotland). I can, if I treat it with respect, don't invade privacy, cause damage to farmland, etc, use the area for recreation - picnics, Paragliding, walking to the beach, etc.

Surely that is consistent with personal freedom and basic autonomy, free from the desires of people with differing views

So the Supreme Court said that this person could hand out religious pamphlets in a privately owned company town. Why? First amendment is part of the answer obviously. Also the 14th, which I don't quite get. The 14th was on of the post-Civil War ones to make sure former slaves had the rights of a citizen.

I THINK it was because they compared impact of the individual's right versus the impact on the business (which was minimal in this case).

The Fourteenth Amendment is mentioned any time the First Amendment is applied to state or local laws, because the Fourteenth Amendment is the reason the First Amendment applies to the states. Originally the First Amendment only applied to the federal government and each state was basically trusted to have and enforce its own equivalent. The idea that the First Amendment can strike down state laws or legal actions is not an idea older than the Civil War.

And this is a (state/14A version of a) First Amendment case because the town was operating enough like an actual town to be treated like one. Conceptually this is the correct result. Without it, towns could evade First Amendment restrictions by letting private companies do the work instead.

Putting these videos in restricted mode is not the same as blocking the videos altogether. If you haven't watched Prager U videos, they are essentially pro west/pro white/pro religion/pro conservative propaganda videos, and I would agree they shouldn't be watched without parental guidance or approval. Some examples of the type of content they post:

"What is the Alt-right" - A video explaining how the Alt-right views have nothing to do with conservatism or the right, and how they most closely align with the left (includes Venn diagrams). Ends with an ominous statement "So in conclusion, the Alt-right is not very different than the left. Only the Left is much, MUCH bigger."

"Black Fathers Matter" - A video explaining how the biggest threat to black communities is not racism, but absent fathers.

"The Top 5 Issues Facing Black Americans" - In summary: 5. They play the victim/make excuses, 4. They don't allow discussion among themselves and ostracize people that don't "play the victim", 3. black on black crime 2. "Proliferation of baby mamas", 1. They are mostly liberal.

I went out and reviewed those 3 video and a couple of others. First the videos are not pro-white, pro-west or propaganda. That is completely wrong. The videos that I saw were well thought out with good references and logic. The only reason to be concerned about you children seeing them, is if you wish to limit their exposure to any ideas that don't match yours.

Your summaries are strongly biased. The alt-right video spends much of it time refuting the alt-right ideology, stating why it is wrong and how it does not match with conservative values. It does states how the movement is some ways mirror the left.

The "black fathers matter", video spend more time talking about ALL fathers than just black fathers. Your "summary" is based solely on the quote provided by the president of the NAACP, did you even watch the rest?

Another one I viewed was about the causes of the Civil war. It was a well thought out and presented discussion on the various causes of the war. It presented the facts in a very well thought out manner that was easy to understand. If was short, and as such not very in-depth.

So the Supreme Court said that this person could hand out religious pamphlets in a privately owned company town. Why? First amendment is part of the answer obviously. Also the 14th, which I don't quite get. The 14th was on of the post-Civil War ones to make sure former slaves had the rights of a citizen.

I THINK it was because they compared impact of the individual's right versus the impact on the business (which was minimal in this case).

I think given your apparent lack of understanding of legal issues, you should probably avoid drawing legal conclusions.

From looking at the facts of the case on Wikipedia, it was the Sherrif who was attempting to apply a company law. The Sherrif is part of the government, and thus the First Amendment applies (as the Sherrif is an agent of the government, and the term "Congrtess" in the first amendment is read to mean "All Government and its agencies at all levels").

Can you please identify the government agent involved in this case?

Hey, PragerU identified that case as a precedent in the legal brief, not I.

I don't think you are correct though. She was charged with trespassing. This seems like a reasonable law to apply in a company town. They didn't charge her with some law made up for the occasion. She lost her welcome, as it were due to her speech.

Whats wild is that the Supreme Court said that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion." So a homeowner can tell you to shut the heck up, but a company or group holding ownership of something might not always be able to.

So, there is room for it to go either way IMO. The devil will be in the details for the precedent and the present case. This could be a very interesting case.

I go to a conference to convince people of a measured phenomenon. If I go into a panel discussion to convince people of it, we don't argue about the conclusions and stay there. No. We go to the theoretical and basics underneath it to start with (if known). If a person in the panel refuses to step to that level, what happens to them? Well, historically, they risk removal or censure because they are mostly likely entrenched for commercial reasons (at least in the applied sciences).The point is that when you don't allow questioning of why, you aren't being objective. You don't seek to win over someone else nor wish to risk being won over yourself. In the case of racism, there is little risk of being win over to their side. Whatever question they might ask has almost certainly been answered. The worst you could say is, "Let me get back to you."

Why bother is a worthwhile question for yourself, but the truth is, unless we as a society choose to actively engage with them, they WILL spread and it will make our society worse. The isolation of them isn't winning.

What you seem to have missed is that the poster wasn't discussing anything like a measured phenomenon. He was discussing a vague concept with no theoretical underpinnings or basics. If you gave a talk on " doodads and thingamabobs", would you really expect the following conversation to be even remotely coherent?

Ok, but do you think it's correct, considering the points I made?Should worldwide widespread companies have complete unregulated freedom of censorship?

You mean "freedom of association" and "freedom of speech". And the answer is yes to both. Corporations are fictional people whose rights flow from the people that make them up. Joe and Bob have the right to speak, and the right not to do business with white supremacists. When they merge their assets to form JoeBob, Inc., that corporation has those same rights.

Companies have the right to associate with people on their own terms, outside a few notable examples (protected classes).

Why do you think corporations shouldn't have the right to choose who they are willing to do business with? Why do you think that the public should be able to force a private company to host a message they don't want to host? Why should one private entity be forced to submit to the speech of a the public?

If you buy a house, are you willing to concede that me and my friends can come inside and transmit our message when we want? No? Why are your property rights different?

The fact that so many people cheer for curtailement of free speech and expression (on both sides of the political spectrum) is terrifying to say the least.

Yes, so stop trying to demand that private companies be forced to give up their freedom of association and freedom of speech. Because that's what you're demanding if you think that a private company should be forced to host, promote, or sell ads to content, even if it doesn't want to.

So the Supreme Court said that this person could hand out religious pamphlets in a privately owned company town. Why? First amendment is part of the answer obviously. Also the 14th, which I don't quite get. The 14th was on of the post-Civil War ones to make sure former slaves had the rights of a citizen.

I THINK it was because they compared impact of the individual's right versus the impact on the business (which was minimal in this case).

The Fourteenth Amendment is mentioned any time the First Amendment is applied to state or local laws, because the Fourteenth Amendment is the reason the First Amendment applies to the states. Originally the First Amendment only applied to the federal government and each state was basically trusted to have and enforce its own equivalent. The idea that the First Amendment can strike down state laws or legal actions is not an idea older than the Civil War.

And this is a (state/14A version of a) First Amendment case because the town was operating enough like an actual town to be treated like one. Conceptually this is the correct result. Without it, towns could evade First Amendment restrictions by letting private companies do the work instead.